yugiohfandomcom-20200222-history
User talk:ATEMVEGETA/Archive 6
For other messages see: Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 4, Archive 5, Archive 6, Archive 7, Archive 8, Archive 9, Archive 10, Archive 11, Archive 12 Unofficial Rulings:Token Monsters Why not just move them to the Token Monsters page? Like how we integrate the unofficial rulings into the pages of Xyz Summon/Xyz Monster. -Falzar FZ- (talk page|useful stuff) 06:23, June 18, 2011 (UTC) Move them ALLLLLLLL! Please be engage to move each freaking page related to "Hero Flash!!". Or Falzar FZ would spamming your talk page with his crap logical and reasons. --FredCa 20:42, June 20, 2011 (UTC) :Thanks, I took it from Coffeedude (Cheesedude) when he used that "Freak" word for "Over freaking link" part. --FredCa 10:02, June 21, 2011 (UTC) RE:Banish Oh, good point. I don't know why I thought it should be capitalised >.> --Deus Ex Machina ✉ 00:02, June 22, 2011 (UTC) Template * It increases user participation. Don't forget, that there is a category link with articles with this template in, so we can monitor what Rulings have been flagged. As long as the situation is monitored, I don't see the issue. However, it would be a good idea to keep the template on the page. You have found OCG rulings for it, that is excellent, but it is still unconfirmed that you can perform that move in the TCG, as the main point of concern was that the move has no clear legality in the TCG. * We have many templates that users can insert into pages. By and large, they don't. There is lots more mess that goes on due to user edits than this would cause.--TwoTailedFox (My Talk Page) 16:57, June 24, 2011 (UTC) ** That depends on who has actually given the ruling. If it's given by a random Judge, heck no. If it is given by a Konami representative, The screenshot of the Thread is to be uploaded; however, the Template will still mention that it has yet to appear on official media.--TwoTailedFox (My Talk Page) 17:36, June 24, 2011 (UTC) ***The answer to the Ruling must be given by someone who works for Konami. The template would remain with a picture, but it would state only that it has yet to appear on Konami's official website. This is the same standard we held UDE Rulings to, Konami should be no different.--TwoTailedFox (My Talk Page) 17:54, June 24, 2011 (UTC) ****I was referring to UDE in the past tense. I am well aware they are now all unofficial, I was referring to when they were still official, that we used them only if they appeared on the UDE website, and that we should hold the Konami rulings now to the same standard. If the questions are answered by Konami, I have no problem, but the ruling still needs a warning until Konami publishes it officially.--TwoTailedFox (My Talk Page) 22:25, June 24, 2011 (UTC) *****I included the Reference notes into the Template, and included a different infobox specifically for the Judge Forum Rulings. All that needs to be added to the bottom of the article is . The more text we can avoid directly inserting into pages, the better.--TwoTailedFox (My Talk Page) 14:15, June 25, 2011 (UTC) ******The border surrounding the text is just idiot-proofing. By encapsulating the text, we confirm what Ruling(s) the info box refers to. It also draws attention from users visiting the page.--TwoTailedFox (My Talk Page) 14:12, June 26, 2011 (UTC) *******Your wish is my command.--TwoTailedFox (My Talk Page) 23:14, June 26, 2011 (UTC) ********Also fixed.--TwoTailedFox (My Talk Page) 17:04, June 27, 2011 (UTC) Fusion Mosnter Material I wondered why it was spelling that way in Elemental HERO Prisma Ruling Page? --FredCa 10:15, June 29, 2011 (UTC) :I see, so anything Konami wrote is a law? --FredCa 10:31, June 29, 2011 (UTC) :Now excuse me while I go to fixing my broke nose. --FredCa 10:40, June 29, 2011 (UTC) RE:Princess of Tsurugi OCG Ruling It's basically the same as the first ruling on Card Rulings:Secret Barrel. :Q: My opponent's "Princess of Tsurugi"'s effect activates, and I Chain "Just Desserts" (which doesn't remain on the field and is sent to the Graveyard after activation). By doing so, do I decrease the damage dealt by "Princess of Tsurugi"? :A: If you Chain a Quick-Play Spell or Trap Card(s) which are sent to the Graveyard after being used, then they remain on the field until you finish resolving all effects in the Chain, and then are sent to the Graveyard simultaneously when the Chain finishes resolving. Thus, even if you Chain "Just Desserts" to "Princess of Tsurugi", then "Just Desserts" is on the field when resolving the effect of "Princess of Tsurugi", so the activated "Just Desserts" is included in the amount of damage received. :If you Chain "Just Desserts" to "Princess of Tsurugi", then it resolves as follows: #The effect of your "Just Desserts" placed on Chain Link 2 inflicts damage to your opponent equal to the number of monsters on your opponent's field x500. (At this time, "Just Desserts" is still on the field, and isn't sent to the Graveyard.) #The effect of your opponent's "Princess of Tsurugi" placed on Chain Link 1 inflicts damage equal to the number of cards in your Spell & Trap Card Zone *500, including the "Just Desserts" placed on Chain Link 2. #All cards in the Chain have finished resolving, so the card "Just Desserts" is sent to the Graveyard. --Deus Ex Machina ✉ 23:03, July 5, 2011 (UTC) :You're welcome :) --Deus Ex Machina ✉ 00:02, July 6, 2011 (UTC) Incorrect Rulings - Shrink : To end this once and for all (hopefully), can you please complete/fix this table? and then move the out of date rulings in Card Rulings:Shrink, similar to what was done at Card Rulings:Rivalry of Warlords? -Falzar FZ- (talk page|useful stuff) 12:45, July 12, 2011 (UTC) :: I don't mind a late response; accuracy always trumps response time. :: Thank you so much for looking it up. :: For the OCG rulings, WC11 seems to be correct on all cases, including the new additions; which is surprising. :: -Falzar FZ- (talk page|useful stuff) 02:51, July 14, 2011 (UTC) Ultimate "Ass" Kicker Forum:Ultimate Axon Kicker Q. has little conflict question. Is that possible to negate the "Ass"-Kicker's gain LP effect with "Divine Wrath"? --FredCa 16:22, July 15, 2011 (UTC) "Creature Swap" Future Reprint... So when the future version of "Errata Lore" for "Creature Swap" has being printed; Will it have "Target" or just like Player's select? If it went with "Target", then Spirit Reaper will dead. If with the latter, then the ruling remains unchanged. --FredCa 16:06, July 16, 2011 (UTC) :Ok, I am just make sure. Since of YS11 (Starter Deck: Dawn of the Xyz) has been released with new update lore. --FredCa 16:14, July 16, 2011 (UTC) New Ruling Article It need your help to get it fixing; Card Rulings:Esper Girl. --FredCa 19:11, July 25, 2011 (UTC) :Good, and hope that trolls wouldn't get it wreck once more. --FredCa 20:39, July 25, 2011 (UTC) Sorry, plus two questions Sorry, I didn't know that Destiny HERO Dasher wouldn't have the dash. There is a 50%, that Destiny HERO have a dash and 50% another without the dash. I don't know if it was a example or not. I guess I should wait before renaming after all the reprint haven't happen yet. First Question, I plan to rename Arcana Force Ex - the Light Ruler into Arcana Force Ex - The Light Ruler because "the" should be capital instead of being lowercase. Arcana Force EX - The Dark Ruler has "the" capital instead of lowercase. According to the Yu-Gi-Oh! video games that I play so far, Arcana Force Ex - the Light Ruler has "the" capital. Second Questions, should I rename Hero characters into HERO characters? From what I red, they are planing to change Hero into HERO, but they didn't say anything about the character. From what I believe, there is a 50% chance that Hero characters become HERO characters and another 50% they will remain as Hero characters. Since most of the Hero characters are not coming back to the Yu-Gi-Oh! games series. Also, should I rename Elemental HERO Neos (character) into Elemental Hero, since the reprint didn't happen yet. The character recently appear in 2010 in Japan and appear February 2011 because of the Yu-Gi-Oh! 3D Bonds Beyond Time. They said that the reprint will happen somewhere in July 2011. Sorry, I ask you these questions, I just want to know the answers. If you couldn't answer these questions, it ok, it fine. WinterNightmare (talk • ) 23:18, July 25, 2011 (UTC) ::Thank, for the info. Sorry to bother you. WinterNightmare (talk • ) 1:58, July 27, 2011 (UTC) One letter change Do you permission that; The Change of "Chance" --FredCa 15:47, July 27, 2011 (UTC) :Alright, I just want to be sure... it changed from "Chance" to "Change". And I knew that we always following Konami as laws. --FredCa 14:41, July 28, 2011 (UTC) RE: Destiny HEROes Thanks for the info, should I continue to rename Destiny HERO Dasher into Destiny HERO - Dasher or should I wait before I made a mistake. WinterNightmare (talk • ) 19:02, July 30, 2011 (UTC) :Thanks for the info, have a nice day. WinterNightmare (talk • ) 21:02, July 30, 2011 (UTC) Reborn Tengu Ruling Is that ok if there is one ruling added by random user; which talking about it TCG ruling for detach from Xyz Monster, to the list? I, as obviously, revived it back to normal. I still only trust you for all this rulings, as well as Deus, because you both are very well known judges. --FredCa 21:42, August 8, 2011 (UTC) : I was about to ask him something related as well. : Julia Hedberg says: "The only people who can say anything official work for KDE. So myself, Kevin Tewart, Franklin Debrito, and Jerome McHale." "we don't really broadcast things that aren't official. That's why it's important to quote us exactly, and not re-interpret or draw new conclusions to other questions, based on what we say." : Although it's written in a loose manner, they are still considered to be official, so should they be added? (See Forum:Xyz,_TCG,_felt_should_be_shared#Kevin Tewart related quotes for more info). -Falzar FZ- (talk page|useful stuff) ::Then should we put it up there with that title you mentioned? That sound better than shove them in Official TCG Rulings. --FredCa 10:45, August 9, 2011 (UTC) RE:Email Rulings I have no problem with adding e-mailed rulings. I don't think that the notice is necessary. You might want to create a forum topic on it, to see what other people think. --Deus Ex Machina ✉ 06:21, September 5, 2011 (UTC) Negating Summoning Conditions There's an OCG ruling that says if Dark Ruler Ha Des destroys Grapha, Dragon Lord of Dark World by battle. Grapha cannot use its Summoning Condition to Special Summon itself from the Graveyard. Is that for Summoning Conditions that Inherently Special Summon itself from the Graveyard (in this case, a new type should be made on the list at Condition Effect). Or is that for all Summoning Conditions (in this case, the type needs to be moved down to the other section)? (assuming you remember the source for your list). Also, for the record, WC11 seems to disagree with that ruling, and allows me to Special Summon the Machina Fortress that was destroyed by battle with Dark Ruler Ha Des from the Graveyard with its own Summoning Condition. -Falzar FZ- (talk page|useful stuff) 14:45, September 9, 2011 (UTC) : However, if Dark Ruler Ha Des destroys a Nomi monster by battle. Can that Nomi monster be Special Summoned with Monster Reborn? : If it can, then it is very interesting, if it cannot, then this is why I'm suggesting a separate Summoning Condition type. -Falzar FZ- (talk page|useful stuff) 01:38, September 11, 2011 (UTC) :: So, maybe something like: :: "Special Summoning Restrictions" for Nomi and Semi-Nomi (Specifically, the Cannot be Normal Summoned or Set, and cannot be Special Summoned part) and Cannot Special Summon monsters. :: "Special Summoning Conditions" such as "Cyber Dragon", "Machina Fortress", "Grapha, Dragon Lord of Dark World" and "Familiar-Possessed - Aussa". :: -Falzar FZ- (talk page|useful stuff) 09:44, September 11, 2011 (UTC) ::: Yea, that's better. ::: Also; (unrelated), can you source your Des Croaking corrected lore? Forum:Des Croaking Tips ::: -Falzar FZ- (talk page|useful stuff) 06:16, September 12, 2011 (UTC) GB Darius I'd like to ask for a clarification - while lately there was a question on whether or not effect negation is linked to "leaves the field-returns to deck" and while Falzar answered according to "out-of-date x2"-email ruling THING. Is that ruling (bth-darius) still seen as "official", esp considering that darius himself could be interpreted differently - with negation being treated as a lingering effect not unlike Black Salvo, for instance. (i'm asking you specifically since you're the one who cleaned up darius rulings) btw - thanks for your work on wikia! ^-^ --Tetisheri (talk • ) 16:02, September 9, 2011 (UTC) Thanks Tetisheri (talk • ) 08:53, September 14, 2011 (UTC) Lore/etc. Curious to know why you just decided to mark the delete post on that article? --FredCa 11:04, September 12, 2011 (UTC) :Then why not replacing them with "Problem Solving"? --FredCa 17:43, September 12, 2011 (UTC) ::I believe that, but what about unreleased update version - like "Familiar-Possessed - Wynn", etc that didn't show but will be very well-aware... You know what I meaning? --FredCa 19:33, September 12, 2011 (UTC) :::Well, what I meant was to covering the one that yet to be releasing; like Wynn, Hiita, etc. They all still have to re-errataing and get their lore correct in "modern" lore we are knowledge right now. --FredCa 21:47, September 13, 2011 (UTC) ::::I knew about that, but I don't meaning to shoving them in the articles directly to the cards - I am like I could post the possible-to-be updating lore of "Familiar-Possessed - Wynn" in my Researching Lore article (which is under my own name) that can predict the correct possible Lore that will be releasing in Legendary Collection 2... --FredCa 21:58, September 13, 2011 (UTC) :::::Indeed, why not put it in your current deleting article? At least it's not a waste of space after all... --FredCa 22:14, September 13, 2011 (UTC) ::::::Ok then. --FredCa 23:15, September 13, 2011 (UTC) TREACHEROUS TRAP HOLE! This article would like to be updating... --FredCa 21:29, September 16, 2011 (UTC) :Thank you, the reason why I reminded you about it was because of other user shoving non-major rulings in there that I had to kick the edit whole way back to last edit Deus made. --FredCa 21:43, September 16, 2011 (UTC) Vennominaga's Insanity Forum:New Rules has a word for you to screw it up. --FredCa 16:54, September 18, 2011 (UTC) :Well, I only repeat what the insider post said (only in link one, which were an idiots) but I just wish to information you about it. --FredCa 22:59, September 18, 2011 (UTC) HERO'S Bond Hey, check out my talk page with nearly specify same title I just post here... Golden just argued with me about the letter that don't go along with the word; "HERO'S" - he wanted it to be "HERO's" instead. So can you go ahead and smacking him down? :After I deciphered Fredcat's message I looked at the Japanese card and realized that he was correct. Thank you for confirming, though. --Golden Key (talk • ) 22:56, September 24, 2011 (UTC) ::Haha, I noticed that the other day. I had let the issue drop because I knew it was going to get reprinted, and that was going to clear things up one way or another. --Golden Key (talk • ) 23:09, October 10, 2011 (UTC) Scrap-Iron Scarecrow Rulings Sorry that I forgot to sign in last topic... so anyways; SISC is not target anymore? If so, I can take the dead rules and fixing it on my Judge Ruling if that's alright with you... --FredCa 22:57, September 24, 2011 (UTC) :Ok, thanks for respond, so I can copy them (except for title) down to my judge rulings so that can prevent the future conflict. --FredCa 23:25, September 24, 2011 (UTC) :Alright, I got it down - Ruling List - S; Scrap-Iron Scarecrow :Tell me if I made any mistake and I can get it straight. --FredCa 23:29, September 24, 2011 (UTC) Service of the Grave Alright, thanks for place them back in because I only trust you (along with Deus and few Admins who are very well familiar). That user who I just undoing on had not explaining the reason why that was true - therefore leading to me think it was non-source rulings. --FredCa 18:37, September 27, 2011 (UTC) My own "Problem-Solve Lore" building... Just tell me what do you think, I added Terrorking Archfiend along the way. If you don't agree, just tell me what I should running it out. Since you're most respect, non-admin, user I ever know so far has best knowledge of how to deal with rulings and problem-solved etc. --FredCa 22:55, September 29, 2011 (UTC) :Oh and btw, if you're too care - feel free track that article; I perhaps updating that article as often as you do with all those ruling articles so far - maybe not as much as you do. --FredCa 23:09, September 29, 2011 (UTC) :I am glad that I kept my grammar from screw-up... --FredCa 10:52, September 30, 2011 (UTC) ::Quite interesting... thank you. I am going to shove it up there in a minute. --FredCa 12:01, September 30, 2011 (UTC) Gallis' effect I am asking that if "Gallis the Star Beast" summon in it "resolved" part of lore? Since I checked the ruling that it said to milling a card in it resolved - which leading me to think that it will summon in the resolved if it was a monster... --FredCa 01:47, October 4, 2011 (UTC) :Ok, thank you - I have post it up in my Judge Rulings so to cover that trouble. --FredCa 17:12, October 4, 2011 (UTC) Grapha... Does he not get his target and destroy effect if he's discarded for "Trade-In"? --FredCa 17:12, October 4, 2011 (UTC) "Monster Reincarnation" Through it's losing the previous ruling - it still a cost to discard a card? --FredCa 01:40, October 8, 2011 (UTC) :Alright, the duelist that I fought at DN said that it's new worded and thought that it no longer "Cost". So thank you anyways - he ran 3 copies of that card in Dark World. --FredCa 11:24, October 8, 2011 (UTC) Catastor Does this monster still able to kill Non-DARK if he was attacking while face-down? Or just like Grand Mole - missed the timing? --FredCa 20:35, October 10, 2011 (UTC) :I am aware of that - I just wanna be sure if Catastor suffered same problem as Grand Mole does; that's all. So I will put it up on my Judge Article. Also you missed one question up above. It's about Grapha and Trade-In cost. --FredCa 22:18, October 10, 2011 (UTC) New Forum with Conflict Forum:Super_Polymerization_Shenanigans --FredCa 00:42, October 11, 2011 (UTC) Scrap Dragon's Destruct Effect Not sure if dest was speaking true - I am asking you for proof; does Scrap Dragon's effect still activate ever if his Synchro Summon is negated and destroy by "Solemn Warning"? It's because I ran into a Scrap User and he Synchro Summoned "Scrap Dragon" through two Scrap Monsters (1 tuner and other non-tuner, blah blah)... --FredCa 19:42, October 11, 2011 (UTC)